Like its predecessors, Modern Warfare 3 is a punchy military shooter with few rivals. It’s not a revolution, but the new zombies world spices things up.
Can Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 be considered an expansion sold at full price? In part yes, and this element inevitably affects the vote, like the questionable single campaign. At the same time, however, it is impossible to pretend nothing has happened: the multiplayer component is the most fun to play in recent years and includes a pack of maps much loved by fans. Unless you buy COD just for the campaign and are willing to turn a blind eye to the lack of major innovations compared to last year, it is really difficult for you to be disappointed by the classic multiplayer of this chapter.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III has its moments of triumph, but they are few and far between. There’s still fun to be had in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III, but this year’s entry feels like a stopgap while we wait for the next major release.
Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer is the shining light of this year's Call of Duty offering and is without a doubt the glue holding the whole package together. Unfortunately, it's hard to ignore the glaring cracks in what should have probably been an expansion for MW2.
If you're a super-fan of the franchise, you might be able to get something out of this package. It's more than clear that this is a rushed product that was supposed to be DLC for last year's game and not a full-priced "new game" - so it's up to you to judge whether it's worth your money.
The more you play, the more it becomes clear that Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 should not have been a full-fledged title. If it had been released at a lower price as an expansion for Modern Warfare 2, there wouldn't have been so much going on, it would probably even have been sufficient. Yet other choices have been made and that ensures that this title will go down in the history books of Call of Duty, but not for the reasons you would like.
Modern Warfare III feels like a content expansion for Call of Duty: Warzone, and if it were sold as that, at a lower price, it could’ve been justified. But by selling this as a premium experience, and crunching developers to create the game in just 16 months, Activision has shown its hand. This game shows that the publisher doesn’t care about its staff, and evidently, doesn’t respect its consumers.
I have been playing since COD 4: Modern Warfare, and I think Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III is a okay game. Zombies is fun and entertaining, but multiplayer is just about camping. I think the developers started to listen to the community, and therefore we have this result. There will always be people who thinks a game is pure garbage, but I really think the franchise is about to get back on track.
Overall, the game seems a little rushed. The zombies is a great way to with any players or just alone. No need to PvP. It’s just chilling. Multiplayer is okay. It’s great to see the old maps and not some new maps with weird layouts. The only thing about multiplayer is the huge amount of campers. A match can be so slow, because nobody is getting any kills or you’re getting killed all the time.
I give this game a 7/10. This is a game that I can spend time on with my friends, but there is a lot, which can be improved.
Before you gloss over this, let me be very clear. I do not hold any type of idolatry for Activision, IW, SH or Treyarch. To be fair, their recent games have been lackluster, uninspiring, and tone deaf to many of the community comments. So please do not think this is some raving endorsement for them because it isn't. But I am fair, and MWIII deserves a fair shake beyond the hate it gets for now being an "Xbox" game and crunch time sequel.
The Good:
Multiplayer: remember when 2019 came out and there was a degree of realism we hadn't seen in Cod MP.? It wasn't perfect, but the mechanics were top notch and many consider it some of the best in the series. Then MWII dropped and completed removed everything that we enjoyed about 2019 just because. Well MWIII is a return to form. Some of the best gameplay mechanics in a while and that should be applauded. The addition of tactical stances, return of slide canceling and reload canceling are a breath of fresh air. Tack on the fact that we have 2009 Mw2 maps and you are in for an amazing time.
Zombies: I'm in love with the mode. I've never been a fan of round based zombies but the open world mechanic with that warzone/dmz feel to it is great. The missions aren't to hard and the zombies/mercenaries give a very good challenge. The new map is full of mystery and it begs to be explored.
Campaign: Here's where everyone is having trouble. I have a different perspective on the Campaign. I think it makes sense that the campaign is as jumbled as it is. Vlad Makarov is an enigma with a plan within a plan and TF141 has to work 3 steps behind him every time. That leads to missions where you just don't feel secure in the result. Sometimes it makes no sense because they are SCRAMBLING to catch up. Once they do the missions find a center and make a lot of sense. But also, this is supposed to be seen as an intermission. Not a fully fleshed story with an end. That's infinity wards job. Sledgehammer was only meant to hold us over.
The Bad
Multiplayer: I'll be honest. The gameplay look is REALLY good. But it is held back almost significantly from Skill Based Matchmaking. Each match feels like a grudge match and doing anything remotely casual is nonexistent. This has been many's complaint for years now and it is the only thing Activision as a whole refuses to acknowledge or discuss with the community. It's driving a wedge and resulting low scores that we see today. I implore the team to listen a bit more deeply here.
Zombies: Timing is everything in this game and I don't think we're given enough time to do things deeply. It feels rushed.
Campaign: Though I admit I actually enjoyed it, you can tell it was a rush job even before the news came out. SH has been put in a tough position a couple of years in a row now when it comes to their CoD titles. Hopefully we can see a fix with their new MSFT overlords.
All in all, despite what others may think, objectively this is one of the best games in the modern era. It's plague by a few BIG issues but that doesn't diminish the good it does. A few tweaks and this game could last for years to come, the question is, will they actually make those tweaks?
It was a game I ordered early. I was looking forward to it but I was disappointed. They continued on their way without adding anything to the game. I couldn't feel the weight of Makarov's character. I don't understand what the Warzone game system does in the single-player game.I wish it had a different story, different gameplay, and characters were handled better, but this game was not the case.
Just spit in the face of the first trilogy. For a 20th COD anniversary, we could expect something great. Can we hope that MSFT will change something now? I doubt. Multiplayer is the same with the more annoying stuff they constantly try to sell. Disappointment.
SummaryModern Warfare 3 delivers a multiplayer experience that continues to raise the bar by focusing on fast-paced, gun-on-gun combat, along with innovative features that support and enhance a large variety of play-styles. Killstreaks have been redesigned, new game modes are being introduced, and a gun progression system evolves your weapons o...